Gloucester - PCN Double Yellow Lines (Invisible!), Please help any suggestions welcome |
Gloucester - PCN Double Yellow Lines (Invisible!), Please help any suggestions welcome |
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:43
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 14 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,551 |
Hi Guys,
I got a parking ticket back in January for parking on extremely faded double yellow lines in an area I am not familiar with, I think the pictures show how crazy this is! I attempted to challenge the PCN initially with the below email and have received a response (with their own attached pictures) explaining how it is clear (which again is ludicrous). In my email I feel I may have shot myself in the foot as I explained I parked their the night previously and after reading a few posts notice that the car was only ‘observed’ for 13 minutes so I might have gotten away claiming loading any suggestions? Also the other end of the lines extend past the T bar? Any help would be much appreciated I think I will go forward and submit a ‘Notice to Owner form’, or is it worth ringing up and trying to speak to someone directly? Thanks! Pictures – https://imgur.com/a/AN9uf Initial Challenge Email – Dear Sirs, I have received a PCN today which I believe has been issued incorrectly / unfairly due to unclear signage and road markings; please see attached photos for a clearer picture of the circumstances under which the ticket has been issued. The pictures clearly show disparity between the road markings even in ideal lighting conditions! Unfortunately this great disparity meant that in poor lighting conditions when I parked the previous evening I was only able to see the properly maintained lines. I believe that the lines do not comply with the 'Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions' guidance therefore meaning 'no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognizable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind' - Davies vs Heatly [1971] R.T.R 145. I hope this email finds you well and for any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me. Google Streetview – https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.7104342,-...33;8i6656?hl=en |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:43
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:57
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Loading? Don't go there unless you were.
Lines look cut off neatly and rubbed out so a reasonable call I think. What probably happened is they were repainted but a car was parked there and stopped the complete line being done. |
|
|
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 17:52
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 14 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,551 |
Loading? Don't go there unless you were. Lines look cut off neatly and rubbed out so a reasonable call I think. What probably happened is they were repainted but a car was parked there and stopped the complete line being done. Hi Stamfordman, thanks for your reply! just to confirm when you say a reasonable call you mean to challenge or a reasonable call from the council? Thanks |
|
|
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 18:13
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
|
|
|
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 18:34
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,919 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
I think I would be tempted to take it to adjudication. The lines are very clear up to a certain point having been repainted, then they virtually fade away indicating that the previous lines limit has been shortened. Bear in mind there is no requirement for a sign, the lines are the sign, and here are ambiguous. HOwever you may get a priggish adjudicator who might say "I can see a few specks of yellow so the lines are compliant", to which I would say "come off it, you idiot !", (but that's just me, I get a bit heated over these matters, hence my pseudonym.
|
|
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 18:14
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 14 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,551 |
I think I would be tempted to take it to adjudication. The lines are very clear up to a certain point having been repainted, then they virtually fade away indicating that the previous lines limit has been shortened. Bear in mind there is no requirement for a sign, the lines are the sign, and here are ambiguous. HOwever you may get a priggish adjudicator who might say "I can see a few specks of yellow so the lines are compliant", to which I would say "come off it, you idiot !", (but that's just me, I get a bit heated over these matters, hence my pseudonym. Thanks for the reply I completely agree with you! I can't seem to find any similar examples other than - http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=64222 I also can't understand this as they have specific guidelines to follow and have essentially 'admitted' their is a problem by repainting some of the lines making it further ambiguous! Any further suggestions would be great! |
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 18:53
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 14 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,551 |
Anyone else have any thoughts? Thank you in advance!
|
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 20:28
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 272 Joined: 19 Aug 2016 Member No.: 86,499 |
There have been issues with Gloucestershire NtO's in the past - unless they have changed these recently, you may well get more points after a formal appeal.
If they had a photo of the lines behind the car, and these were also incomplete, then I'd argue there was less of a case. As the council appear not to have evidence of this, I'd argue you should push on with this. Looking at the lines on GSV, it does look like de minimis may be a factor, as the lines appeared to stop shortly after the front of the car - unfortunately, however, the photo evidence doesn't seem to support this either - and unfortunately a turning car blocks the view of the lines in the most recent GSV image, although it does look like the lines have been faded since May last year (GSV) This post has been edited by mdann52: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 20:29 |
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 20:41
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 14 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,551 |
There have been issues with Gloucestershire NtO's in the past - unless they have changed these recently, you may well get more points after a formal appeal. If they had a photo of the lines behind the car, and these were also incomplete, then I'd argue there was less of a case. As the council appear not to have evidence of this, I'd argue you should push on with this. Looking at the lines on GSV, it does look like de minimis may be a factor, as the lines appeared to stop shortly after the front of the car - unfortunately, however, the photo evidence doesn't seem to support this either - and unfortunately a turning car blocks the view of the lines in the most recent GSV image, although it does look like the lines have been faded since May last year (GSV) Hi Mdann52, do you recall what the issues with NtO's were? I'm in two minds at the moment, paying the £35 fine to avoid hassle might be the easiest option at the moment. I wouldn't have parked there had I questioned it! Thanks for the reply, much appreciated! |
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 20:57
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,860 Joined: 12 May 2012 Member No.: 54,871 |
Have you looked at the TRO (Traffic Regulation Order) that authorises the DYLs?
It could well be worth your while to do so as that would provide incontrovertible evidence as to the validity of the PCN. TROs are usually found on the Councils website - if not, get on to the Legal Dept at the Council, and ask for it, but don't mention the fact that you have received a PCN! |
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 21:11
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 272 Joined: 19 Aug 2016 Member No.: 86,499 |
There have been issues with Gloucestershire NtO's in the past - unless they have changed these recently, you may well get more points after a formal appeal. If they had a photo of the lines behind the car, and these were also incomplete, then I'd argue there was less of a case. As the council appear not to have evidence of this, I'd argue you should push on with this. Looking at the lines on GSV, it does look like de minimis may be a factor, as the lines appeared to stop shortly after the front of the car - unfortunately, however, the photo evidence doesn't seem to support this either - and unfortunately a turning car blocks the view of the lines in the most recent GSV image, although it does look like the lines have been faded since May last year (GSV) Hi Mdann52, do you recall what the issues with NtO's were? I'm in two minds at the moment, paying the £35 fine to avoid hassle might be the easiest option at the moment. I wouldn't have parked there had I questioned it! Thanks for the reply, much appreciated! I can probably dig up the threads - Gloucestershire NtO's used to have an issue where ACPOA dealt with appeals and payments, forming a PI which could be raised at adjudication (as only the enforcement authority can deal with these). I'm struggling to find any recent examples on the forums, so I wouldn't rely on this just yet. More context in post 17 onward here if you're interested |
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 21:13
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 353 Joined: 19 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,634 |
the dyl have been excoriated (tech term). No pay.
|
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:18
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,073 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
Gross over-simplification.
GSV shows DYL where the OP's car was parked. Photos show discoloured but still visible DYL as a continuation of more clearly marked DYL which are not terminated. It is NOT a certainty that an adj would find that the DYLs were not clear enough. Your problem is that the lines which count are those under your car, not ahead of it, and if the authority were to produce after the fact photos which showed DYLs which terminate under/behind your car then an adj would be likely to find for the authority. This is not black and white, more grey and yellow. |
|
|
Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 22:23
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 353 Joined: 19 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,634 |
refusing an appeal on that just encourages EA not to paint markings. Easy win.
|
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 10:12
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
This case revolves around the lines being substantially compliant and them being adequate.
The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 Reg 18 states (my bold):- Traffic signs 18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure— (a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road; (b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force; and ©in a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application of a previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority considers requisite to avoid confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong positions. The Council has a clear duty not to mislead or confuse and has a duty to maintain lines to an adequate standard --where have they gone wrong? Mick |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 18:18
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 14 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,551 |
This case revolves around the lines being substantially compliant and them being adequate. The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 Reg 18 states (my bold):- Traffic signs 18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure— (a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road; (b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force; and ©in a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application of a previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority considers requisite to avoid confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong positions. The Council has a clear duty not to mislead or confuse and has a duty to maintain lines to an adequate standard --where have they gone wrong? Mick Hi Mick, thanks for the reply! Useful to have some facts which can be used in my next reply to them I'm currently keeping a document of all of this useful information to send onto them. thank you again! |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 18:36
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 14 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,551 |
Gross over-simplification. GSV shows DYL where the OP's car was parked. Photos show discoloured but still visible DYL as a continuation of more clearly marked DYL which are not terminated. It is NOT a certainty that an adj would find that the DYLs were not clear enough. Your problem is that the lines which count are those under your car, not ahead of it, and if the authority were to produce after the fact photos which showed DYLs which terminate under/behind your car then an adj would be likely to find for the authority. This is not black and white, more grey and yellow. Hi hcandersen, thank you for the reply! I agree it is more "grey and yellow" unfortunately! There is a guide of standards the council should conform to and clearly they have maintained other areas however left this ambiguous so not sure where I would stand if I were to challenge! |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 20:42
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 353 Joined: 19 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,634 |
appealing is always a gamble, you decide
|
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 21:53
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,270 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
and have received a response (with their own attached pictures) explaining how it is clear (which again is ludicrous). Have we seen this? -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 21:58
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 14 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,551 |
and have received a response (with their own attached pictures) explaining how it is clear (which again is ludicrous). Have we seen this? Hi Neil, it's within the album of pictures 6th and 7th image https://imgur.com/a/AN9uf Not the most logical order sorry! Appreciate you having a look appealing is always a gamble, you decide Hi 4101, thanks for having a look! Agreed I've been scouring the forum and building up some info and drafting a letter to see if I've got enough to back it up. Tempted to try and get someone on the phone and ask them to look at them while we speak go hear their thoughts as it's clearly ambiguous (to me at least!) |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 16:02 |